https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386338 The Tribunal dismissed stay applications against Orders-in-Appeal, citing limited power to stay pre-deposit recovery. It found the applications not maintainable due to fixed pre-deposit amounts. Regarding Cenvat credit refund eligibility under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, the Tribunal upheld the respondents' entitlement. The lower authority rejected claims based on drawback availed under 1995 Rules, but the first appellate authority allowed refunds as no Cenvat credit or excise duty rebate was claimed, only customs duty drawback. The Tribunal clarified the drawback scheme, allowing the refund as no excise duty drawback was availed. The decision favored the respondents, affirming their eligibility for Cenvat credit refund under Rule 5. en-us Fri, 21 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2019 07:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386338 The Tribunal dismissed stay applications against Orders-in-Appeal, citing limited power to stay pre-deposit recovery. It found the applications not maintainable due to fixed pre-deposit amounts. Regarding Cenvat credit refund eligibility under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, the Tribunal upheld the respondents' entitlement. The lower authority rejected claims based on drawback availed under 1995 Rules, but the first appellate authority allowed refunds as no Cenvat credit or excise duty rebate was claimed, only customs duty drawback. The Tribunal clarified the drawback scheme, allowing the refund as no excise duty drawback was availed. The decision favored the respondents, affirming their eligibility for Cenvat credit refund under Rule 5. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386338